284 ADMINISTRATION IN 1916

neither their professional knowledge nor their ex-
perience qualified them to undertake. To maintain
the old standard of legal administration, recourse was
had to the expedient of appointing officers who in
civilian life followed the pursuit of the law. Not
unnaturally the new recruits of the Staff regarded the
Judge Advocate-General as the crowning authority in
the Army, and desired to refer to his decision knotty
points of administration only remotely connected
with law. Weak commanders acquiesced in the
practice, content to rid themselves of responsibility.
Others, bolder, stood out for awhile until they too,
placed between the fire of their own adviser and the
Judge Advocate, succumbed. The power of the Legal
Department at General Head-quarters grew, though
the tendency was not altogether good for the discipline
of the Army. Anxious to obtain a common standard
of punishments, the Department, in ignorance of local
conditions, over-rode unhesitatingly the sentences
awarded by courts martial. Confirming officers grew
nervous of rebuke, and thought more constantly of
the Judge Advocate-General's opinion than they did
of the discipline of the troops within their command.
In Egypt the Department had the special duty of
advising upon the administration of martial law over
the civilian population of the country. It attacked
the delicate task very properly by informing the public
of the nature of their obligations to military authority.
A proclamation, issued by the Commander-in-Chief
on the 14th May 1916, dealt comprehensively with
the point. No officer in future could plead ignorance
of his responsibility, and no civilian excuse for unlawful
action. Specific prohibitions were enumerated, and
conduct of a nature to aid the enemy was explained.
Finally, the burden of proof was defined. To the
unprofessional mind the provisions seemed explicit
enough: but hardly was the proclamation published